>> So what do you think Haskell solves inelegantly?
>>
>> It's no secret that the libraries lack vast swathes of important
>> functionality, or that some of the build tools leave a lot to be
>> desired. But the core language itself? It isn't perfect, but it's a
>> damn-site more elegant than any other programming language I've ever
>> laid eyes on.
>
> That may well be true, and I actually believe it, but as soon as you
> want to do some serious programming you'll /need/ more than that elegant
> core; you'll need those libraries of which /you/ yourself said that
> various of them suck for this and that reason and none of them gives you
> exactly what you need.
>
> An elegant core language may be nice to have, but if as a consequence it
> takes you ages to get the job done, unless you make use of plenty
> non-elegant language extensions or libraries, it doesn't /really/
> qualify as "a simpler, more elegant design that solves everything".

Right. So you're saying the fact that nobody has sat down and written a 
comprehensive set of libraries makes the language "non-elegant" and 
"poorly designed"?

Seriously, what?

Haskell does not have the rich set of libraries that C# has because it 
wasn't developed by a multi-billion dollar global mega corporation. It 
was developed by three beardy guys in a shed on day. If it ever becomes 
popular, we'll see more libraries being developed for it. If (as seems 
more likely) it never becomes really popular, then we won't. But either 
way, this has nothing to do with whether the language is well-designed 
or not.

Post a reply to this message